← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln
Thread ID: 8165 | Posts: 19 | Started: 2003-07-16
2003-07-16 17:00 | User Profile
Why We Should Deny We're Racists or Anti-Semites by Hugh Lincoln
Because we should. "Racist" means only one thing to people: bad person. Ditto anti-Semite. That also means "crackpot." We're not crackpots. We're not bad people. We're believers in racial difference, negative Jewish influence, and support White racial sovereignty. That's true, good and right. Our movement is too fragile for anyone to expect a positive reception with "I'm a racist." Some can pull it off, not most.
So deny it if asked by those who don't understand. Count on that being most folks. Ever hear a Jew call himself a Jewish supremacist?
2003-07-16 17:07 | User Profile
*Why We Should Deny We're Racists or Anti-Semites*
Good luck. In this society, you're an evil racist just for saying you're against [u]illegal[/u] immigration, and a filthy anti-Semite if you don't support Israel 110% (or if you say you don't like bagels).
2003-07-16 17:35 | User Profile
"Racism" is not a word; it is marxist tool of attack. This so-called word was made up by marxists and has no real meaning.
2003-07-16 21:34 | User Profile
We're going to be called racists anyway. I agree that we don't need to be like "Hi, nice to meet you. I'm a racist!" but I don't think most of us do that since we know already the kind of reaction most people have to so-called racism.
2003-07-16 21:41 | User Profile
The fruits of denial:
[url=http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=906]http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=906[/url]
2003-07-16 22:02 | User Profile
When asked if you're a racist, just ask them what they mean by the word "racist". Ditto for "anti-semitism". When they respond with "someone who hates other people just because of the color of their skin" or "someone who hates jews just because they're jews", most of us here can quite honestly say No. Make the bastards define the :dung:
Or, "If by 'racist', you mean someone who believes there may be biological differences between races and prefers the company of people like themselves, yes, I am a racist."
Or, "If by 'anti-semite', you mean someone who puts the interests of their own country over Israel, yes, I am an anti-semite."
2003-07-16 22:36 | User Profile
wintermute,
I think should call get rid of the term "White", We are Europeans. I like the term Anglo-Saxon better than Anglo. I think the W.A.S.P. is also good; after all the W.A.S.P. is the American Ethnic Group. We are Indo-European; our ancestry comes from the so-called "Kurgan culture" once known by the term "Aryan."
**It's still too early for "Aryan", and "Indo-European" is too technical. The right word for our people - for now - I believe is "Anglo". I have more than my fair share of Celtic ancestry, and I understand that some of us are going to have to bite our tongues when the word is used. Still, it's the best of the alternatives open to us. Consider:
"White" has no euphonic resonance or emotional force. It exists in the neutral-bland-middling to negative part of the spectrum. "Anglo" not only has positive connotations that its cousin, "Ango-Saxon" does not, it is a word in common usage - describing the very people looking for a name for themselves.**
Look at what an American said just 100 years ago!
**"THE CLANSMAN" is the second book of a series of historical novels planned on the Race Conflict. "The Leopard's Spots" was the statement in historical outline of the conditions from the enfranchisement of the Negro to his disfranchisement.
"The Clansman" develops the true story of the "Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy," which overturned the Reconstruction régime.
The organisation was governed by the Grand Wizard Commander-in-Chief, who lived at Memphis, Tennessee. The Grand Dragon commanded a State, the Grand Titan a Congressional District, the Grand Giant a County, and the Grand Cyclops a Township Den. The twelve volumes of Government reports on the famous Klan refer chiefly to events which occurred after 1870, the date of its dissolution.
The chaos of blind passion that followed Lincoln's assassination is inconceivable to-day. The Revolution it produced in our Government, and the bold attempt of Thaddeus Stevens to Africanise ten great states of the American Union, read now like tales from "The Arabian Nights."
Oh Tom if you were alive today!!!!!!!
I have sought to preserve in this romance both the letter and the spirit of this remarkable period. The men who enact the drama of fierce revenge into which
I have woven a double love-story are historical figures. I have merely changed their names without taking a liberty with any essential historic fact.
In the darkest hour of the life of the South, when her wounded people lay helpless amid rags and ashes under the beak and talon of the Vulture, suddenly from the mists of the mountains appeared a white cloud the size of a man's hand. It grew until its mantle of mystery enfolded the stricken earth and sky. An "Invisible Empire" had risen from the field of Death and challenged the Visible to mortal combat.
How the young South, led by the reincarnated souls of the Clansmen of Old Scotland, went forth under this cover and against overwhelming odds, daring exile, imprisonment, and a felon's death, and saved the life of a people, forms one of the most dramatic chapters in the history of the Aryan race.
THOMAS DIXON, jr.
DIXONDALE, Va., December 14, 1904. **
Who were the Aryans? setting the record straight... [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9348]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...?showtopic=9348[/url]
The Logic Of The Attack On Southern Symbols Sam Francis [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9355]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...?showtopic=9355[/url]
Chapter XIII of The Leopard's Spots by Thomas Dixon, Jr. [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=485&hl=dixon]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...ic=485&hl=dixon[/url]
2003-07-16 22:46 | User Profile
I disagree 'Anglo' is better than white. 'White' is the best, strongest term going. It is clearly understood, short and tight in sound, just what we want. It is just crude enough and rough enough to get across the essential point: whites exist; whites have interests; Whites defend them.
'White' hits the ear much stronger than 'Anglo,' which sounds at once wimpy and crooked -- because it calls to mind the Anglo-American elite, second only to Jews in selling out America to advance a foreign nation's interest. Anglo-Saxon vibes pioneer, Kipling, manifest destiny, sounds strong and honest compared to 'Anglo' alone.
'Anglo' as used these days to encompass all whites is just a slur used by sh*tskins, and adopted by condescending, white-hating liberal white wimps and the jews who set the Line. Whites will not allow people of failure to dominate or denominate us.
The key in countering slurs is to refuse to be put on the defensive. This requires a made-up mind, a strong character, and a plan of attack going in. The question 'are you a racist' attempts to jam a frame on you. Simply say, "Whites have interests. I defend them." Or say, "The other week in Cleveland, a white girl was beat up by a couple dozen sh*tskins and negroes -- excuse me - pre-gentlemen and -gentleladies of color on 'beat up a white kid day.'" My group thinks that girl and the millions of young whites like her have interests, and we will defend them. Jewish racists and black racists deny Whites have interests, even as their people are swindling and raping and murdering us -- because we are White. Let the word go forth from this time and place: Whites have interests, and Whites will defend those interests." How jews and blacks and Mexicans feel about that is immaterial. WHITES ARE BACK.
Some variant of that is the best you can do.
I recommend not speaking to the jew media, only speaking to White media. If the jew media want your time, make them pay for it. The jew-controlled media never treat Whites fairly. If they wish to abuse you, make sure you get something equally valuable in exchange.
Never defend, always attack. Conservatives are congenitally unable to follow this advice, because they tend toward the lazy and cowardly. But WHITES grasp what I say immediately. The conservative always favors the what he thinks genteel, less often because he is refined and more often because he's a coward. He uses the genteel, ineffectual term, does nothing, and persuades himself that those fighting and using fighting words are the real problem.
The conservative is afraid to admit the negro and the Jew exist, and fight them on the terms they must be fought -- crude, visceral. If there were a battle between negroes and Jews and our people, do you think an 'Anglo' or a 'White' would be likelier to show up?
2003-07-17 00:33 | User Profile
To my ear "Anglo" sounds gay, just as "Anglo-Saxon" does.
"White" is good. Sounds good in Russian too. And by the way, it's opposite of "black", which in Russian has about the same meaning as "niggerr" in English.
2003-07-17 01:08 | User Profile
I'm American, of German and English descent, but my argument has nothing to do with that. If I thought 'Anglo' were the right term, or that WASP 'culture of civility' were the way out of our predicament, I would advocate it. But I don't believe that.
I've seen what might be loosely termed the "WASP way" and the "Germanic way" up close, and I think the latter, properly led and organized is objectively much likelier to be the path to victory, given the present circumstances and my belief that organized jewry is the agent primarily responsible for bringing them about. If you don't share that assumption,if you think we can talk and write and debate our way back to sanity, then my solution won't make sense. But if you do agree that jews are the main problem, and how to get back on top of them the essential political question, then consider this analysis.
The WASP way works great for a nation of whites; it fails completely when confronted with cohesive, aggressive alien outsiders - jews. Tolerance, slowness to anger, overlooking the "mistakes" of others is great for neighborliness and getting along. The layered life, emphasizing subtle expression of superiority, I find highly irritating and not to taste. But itz a way we can live with. But the jews understand the WASP way, and use it against us, by defining anything against their agenda as unmannerly and uneducated. The WASP scurries to comply. Overlooking and soothing hurt feelings, pretending their is no inherent conflict in positions, means continually giving in to the attacking, complaining jew. The jew never backs off, never yields, always presses new demands. The WASP way offers nothing to cope with this invasion. It isn't biologically geared to. It is open and defenseless to jewish predation.
To fight the jews, no matter your opinion of the German nationalists, you are going to have to adopt similar tactics and arguments, as Kevin MacDonald outlines in his books. You must develop a mirror strategy, whereby our White in-group aggressively helps itself internally, while aggressively attacking in every possible way the hostile jew outgroup. Not because I'm a "nazi" but because I objectively believe that jews are the problem and objectively believe that the nazis of all political groups understood how to combat them do we Whites advocate what I do.
There are Race Trekkies who dress up like German nationalists of the '30s. These are average people who grasp the form, but not the essence. Their heart is in the right place, but their minds aren't powerful enough to understand that you have to separate the essence from the trappings, and make sure that the trappings are effectively adapted to the time and place in question.
You say:
"I think an even better question is, which will play better? If the battle is on PBS or in a local cafe, 'Anglos' or 'Indo Europeans' might make more points, and more converts, than White. Whites - aren't they The Other Dead Men?"
We're in danger of talking past each other here. We have to make sure we're driving off the same assumptions. I see the system as broken, and irreparable. That doesn't mean we Whites won't play in it if it serves our advantage. But getting on BET or Phil Donahue or PBS -- so what? We make progress by rejecting the jew-controlled media out of hand, and building our own. The success of VNN has shown what can be done. And it hints that the sentiment that Buchanan and Duke appealed to, however openly or veiledly, is still there. Waiting for someone to pick up the reins and lead.
We will get more respect and goodies out of the System by rejecting it outright than by approaching it on its terms. The minute we let the system manipulate us, we've lost. The latest Moran example showed that. He gave in to their moral frame, and they crushed him in short order.
I don't spend much time at any forum because people don't need arguments, they need leadership. Our case is simple. The question is how many men we can attract to fight. They will be attracted by the feeling that we have the character and guts to back up what we say, not by our tiresome, tedious expostulation. Our case was made decades ago. Itz all on file for new "investigators" at VNN and a hundred other sites. The question now is who can attract and organize fighters, verbal and physical.
When it comes to terms, there are a number of reasons to prefer 'White.' Like the idea 'race' itself, itz a little hazy around the edges, but it bespeaks an essential and unavoidable reality. 'Anglo' -- what is that? Denotatively it refers to the English, or English-descended. Only recently has the Mexican-slur expansion been accepted by jew media and dictionaries. 'Anglo' as used by Mexicans and jews, is intended as dismissively disrespectful. That alone is reason not to use it. You don't meet and beat a force by acceding to it. We are Whites; Mexicans and other fleas-du-sur are sh*tskins. We define us. We define them. We insist on our terms wherever we go. That is how to fight. 'White,' if nothing else, rhymes with 'fight.'
I'm not sure what to say to your idea that people think of "angels" when they hear "Anglo." I doubt one person in a hundred thinks that. What it "klingt" is angle. It sounds like angling, angling for advatage. Trying to sharp someone. Trying to get someone else to do your fighting for you. I disagree again on 'Anglophobia' vs anti-White. The former sounds whiny; the latter sounds clear and objective. "Justice O'Connor's decision was the latest in a string of anti-White decisions that have left whites a sad and sorry third-class caste in the land their forefathers created." Versus: "Justice O'Connors decision sent a clear message of Anglophobia at the highest levels of American society." I don't know, but Anglophobia does not all embrace the White race, it means the narrow hatred of things English. I would associate it not with anti-White sentiment, but with colonial subjects opposed to the Empire. Furthermore, people do not associate England with strength, but with class and hypocrisy. The WASP overclass that used to exist has pretty much faded from the scene. 'White' is the best catchall we have, because itz sound is taut, itz meaning unmistakeable. 'Anglo,' by contrast, like 'racialist' instead of 'racist,' when used by a Mexican is an unmistakeable slur, and when used by a White, sounds like he's trying to put a pseudo-sophisticated, pseudo-classy, pseudo-respectable spin on what he really means.
We are Whites. We have interests as Whites. We will defend our White interests from our principal enemy, the jew.
2003-07-17 01:40 | User Profile
I think "White" is a powerful term that speaks for itself. I cannot see "European-American" ever being widely accepted because on paper it just looks idiotic. Plus, by doing so, we would be cow-towing to the same people who demand the "hyphenated-American" status (Blacks, Amerinds, Asians) and we'd all become one big family all together in the "struggle".
"Racist", like "White supremacist", is a smear term that speaks louder than actions.
2003-07-17 01:44 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Alex Linder@Jul 16 2003, 17:08 * ** We are Whites. We have interests as Whites. We will defend our White interests from our principal enemy, the jew. **
The last sentence sums it all up in the proverbial nutshell.
"Anglo?" Only hear that from the mestizo politicians when they're bitching about Whites, or screaming for more favors and handouts. That they have no idea where the term comes from adds to the unintentional hilarity of their bleating.
2003-07-17 01:53 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Roy Batty@Jul 17 2003, 01:44 * **
"Anglo?" Only hear that from the mestizo politicians when they're bitching about Whites, or screaming for more favors and handouts. **
Yes, "Anglo" is the term of choice amongst uppity Latins spitting in the face of the White man and his culture. "Gringo" is the one you'll hear behind the door, although sometimes it's managed to slip through underneath.
2003-07-17 02:50 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Robbie@Jul 16 2003, 19:53 * ** Yes, "Anglo" is the term of choice amongst uppity Latins spitting in the face of the White man and his culture.ÃÂ "Gringo" is the one you'll hear behind the door, although sometimes it's managed to slip through underneath. **
They use "gringo" all the time in Freeperville. Ah, but's it all in good fun, right? Why are you being so uptight, White boy? <_<
[SIZE=2]of course, [url=http://www.vdare.com/pb/occupied_michigan.htm]if you were to use the word spic*, you'd be thrown in the gulag[/url][/SIZE].
Fweepers wuv :wub: their pwecious "Hispanics," because that's what Karl Rove...I mean, George Bush, tells them to do. The GOP needs them votes, by golly!
The White Freeper is a pitiful creature; one who puts his party--the GOP--above his race. :thd:
[SIZE=2]to Alex Linder: Good to see you posting here.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]See what I mean? This board accepts the word "Gringo" but not Sp*c! Was this forum software programmed by the ADL?[/SIZE]
2003-07-17 03:04 | User Profile
I think Wintermute's strategy is sound. I'm reminded of conservative columnist Florence King describing how Lizzie Borden snapped and commenced a-whackin':
**"...Lizzie [Borden] did what every over civilized, understated Wasp is entirely capable of doing once we finally admit we're mad as hell and aren't going to take it any more: She went from Anglo to Saxon in a trice." **
Anglo for our political face; Saxon when deeds are called for.
2003-07-17 07:02 | User Profile
Last post for now; we've had this go-round too many times, it's not productive.
You make many good points, Wintermute, and I'm not going to disagree. Let me just try one time again to strip this particular non-terminological argument to essentials.
Different tones and styles are valid, depending on the audience addressed. That is certain, and it is reflected among VNN writers.
What is not valid is the casual use of "we." You ask conservatives in general, or OD posters in specfic, who "we" are, you get dozens of answers. We are constitutionalists, or individualists, or libertarians or conservatives, or paleoconservatives or Christians or Southrons or traditionalists or neotraditionalists -- every possible variation of race, religion, and reason.
In short, you don't know. Some sort of hazy conservatism is the best you can do.
We do.
That is the difference between Whites and conservatives.
Diversity in approach only works if you have agreement on essentials: Whites are Us. Jews are Them. Whites must take power from jews.
I encourage OD members to ask themselves: are the guys who've done the same whine-and-whinge for fifty years ever going to lead us anywhere? Remember the words everyone repeats: the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. Maybe tomorrow everyone will become rational and respond to subtle, technically irrefutably reasoned articles. What could be less conservative than that planted axiom of almost all conservative/libertarian thought?
Maybe itz time to drop the act and come out White. If you've got more than discussion in you, now's a great time to get involved.
I don't hestitate to make it directly personal: bet on me, not Francis or Roberts or Brimelow. I want to lead. They don't. They haven't got what it takes, and their actions show it.
If you want to make something happen, get in touch.
alinder@kvmo.net
2003-07-17 09:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Jul 17 2003, 02:23 * > There are Race Trekkies who dress up like German nationalists of the '30s. These are average people who grasp the form, but not the essence. Their heart is in the right place, but their minds aren't powerful enough to understand that you have to separate the essence from the trappings, and make sure that the trappings are effectively adapted to the time and place in question*. **
Here's the essence of the argument. If the "WASP" way is terminally discredited, why not march under the gammadion? Why seperate essence from "trapping" except to meet specific local needs? You say:
**
I must say Wintermute, I admire your articulate defense of the terminology of WASP and Anglo, and your discussion with Linder over this versus the usage "white". But I don't really understand the amount of energy devoted to it, except as an indication to some extent our movement is still struggling with its own identity.
As a strictly tactical tool, I think it is obviously irrelevent. If we were dominant, we could define the images, language, and even conceptuality used in our regard. We could assert terms like "racialist" vs. "racist" "WASP", vs. "Anglo" vs "White" and use them as political image-making tools. As it is now, it matters little to anyone except those inside the movement. It is unlikely the press will pick up on the term we use - even if they did, I doubt it would matter much. I'm reminded of Archie Bunker's famous phrase "everybody calls em something"
I appreciate all you guys work. but I have to wonder if your best efforts might be better directed at threads other than long discussions over terminology, even if words are undoubtedly important.
2003-07-17 09:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by Alex Linder@Jul 17 2003, 07:02 * *What is not valid is the casual use of "we." You ask conservatives in general, or OD posters in specfic, who "we" are, you get dozens of answers. We are constitutionalists, or individualists, or libertarians or conservatives, or paleoconservatives or Christians or Southrons or traditionalists or neotraditionalists -- every possible variation of race, religion, and reason.
In short, you don't know. Some sort of hazy conservatism is the best you can do.
We do.
That is the difference between Whites and conservatives.** I can hardly wait for the conceptual bombshell you have waiting.
Diversity in approach only works if you have agreement on essentials(Okie note - Tex hasn't reenable HTML yet): Whites are Us. Jews are Them. Bravo! Who are we? Simple. We are Us!
**Whites must take power from jews.
I encourage OD members to ask themselves: are the guys who've done the same whine-and-whinge for fifty years ever going to lead us anywhere? Remember the words everyone repeats: the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.**
OK. If you're stuck in a dead end job, say driving a truck between towns, is the definition of sanity veering off the road? Change is good, but it requires intelligence. Something you seem to falsely presume, re:> **Maybe tomorrow everyone will become rational and respond to subtle, technically irrefutably reasoned articles. What could be less conservative than that planted axiom of almost all conservative/libertarian thought? ** Most people won't, but in any case, I doubt you obviously won't be the one to write such articles in any case.
Sad, because I can really see a certain potential brilliance in what you put out. But it always seems to fall apart when it starts to threaten something serious.
Going from logic to pure propagada, you certainly have a mixture. Comparing it with Marxism, only a few actually ever read Das Kapital. But the underlying confidence in its seriousness lay behind the seriousness of the work going into the popularizing material, the works of propoganda like "The Manifesto" and agitation like the slogans, chants, polemics, and songs.
Sloganeering indeed must complement sound reasoned thought for it to have an impact. But it cannot replace it. Arguing two pages over "anglo" vs. "white" shows that basic misplaced emphasis.
**Maybe itz time to drop the act and come out White. If you've got more than discussion in you, now's a great time to get involved. ** You mean talk of getting involved.
I don't hestitate to make it directly personal: bet on me, not Francis or Roberts or Brimelow.ÃÂ I want to lead. They don't. They haven't got what it takes, and their actions show it. So? Neither do you. They at least don't pretend to be more than are. They are just the talking heads they aspire to be. You by hinting to be more, actually just show your anability to match them at the one thing they do best, which is not that much different than what you do, despite thy protestations of action.
**If you want to make something happen, get in touch.ÃÂ
alinder@kvmo.net**
More important, I want what happens to be good. But we need something to happen first to be worried, and in spite of thy protestations, I'm skeptical.
2003-07-17 14:16 | User Profile
Originally posted by Alex Linder@Jul 17 2003, 01:02 * *If you want to make something happen, get in touch.ÃÂ
alinder@kvmo.net**
Alex,
Now that we have you to do Streicher's act, what are the prospects for "Hitler's" advent?
Neo
[ 1) What is the name of the God of War of the White Nationalists?]